Jackson v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

October 31, 2017

JARED JACKSON, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER

SAMUEL
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before
the Court are two motions filed by Petitioner Jared Jackson:
(1) a pro se motion seeking to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the
"§ 2255 Motion"), filed on June 26, 2016 (ECF
No. 1), and (2) a pro se motion for leave to file an
amended motion seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "Motion to
Amend § 2255") . (ECF No. 5; see also ECF
No. 5-1; ECF No. 5-2.) Jackson challenges his sentence in
Case No. 2:06-20475. The Government responded on October 13,
2017. (ECF No. 9.)

For the
following reasons, the § 2255 Motion is DENIED, and the
Motion to Amend § 2255 is DENIED AS FUTILE.

I.
Background

On
January 5, 2009, Petitioner pled guilty to three counts: (1)
illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922; (2) Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1951; and (3) use of a firearm in relation
to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c). (Cr. ECF No. 71 at 61; Cr. ECF No. 62 at
51-53.J[1] At Petitioner's sentencing on March
22, 2010, the Court determined that he was an Armed Career
Criminal pursuant to § 4B1.4 of the U.S. Sentencing
Commission Guidelines and a Career Offender pursuant to
§ 4B1.1 of the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines.
(Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶
18.) Petitioner's criminal record included five Tennessee
convictions for aggravated robbery. (Id. at
¶¶ 24, 26-29.) Petitioner's advisory guideline
range was 262 to 327 months. (Id. at ¶ 59.) He
was sentenced to the statutory minimum of 180 months for the
Hobbs Act robbery and felon in possession convictions, to run
concurrently, and to the statutory minimum of 84 months for
the § 924(c) conviction, to run consecutively, for a
total of 264 months in prison. (Cr. ECF No. 89 at 81.)

On June
28, 2016, Petitioner filed this § 2255 Motion. (ECF No.
1.) On August 12, 2016, Petitioner filed the Motion to Amend
§ 2255. (ECF No. 5; see also ECF No. 5-1; ECF
No. 5-2.) Petitioner argues that he is entitled to
resentencing under Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He contends that, after
Johnson, his conviction for using a firearm in
relation to a crime of violence "violates due process of
law." (Id.) He also argues that Hobbs Act
Robbery is not a "crime of violence."
(Id.) Petitioner asks the Court to "vacate his
conviction." (Id.)

Petitioner's
first argument has been rejected by the Sixth Circuit. In
United States v. Taylor, the court held that,
"[b]ecause § 924(c)(3)(B) is considerably narrower
than the statute invalidated by the Court in
Johnson, and because much of Johnson's
analysis does not apply to § 924(c)(3)(B), " the
definition of "crime of violence" in § 924(c)
(3) (B) is not unconstitutionally vague. 814 F.3d 340, 375-76
(6th Cir. 2016) .

Petitioner's
second argument has also been rejected by the Sixth Circuit.
In United States v. Gooch, the court held "that
Hobbs Act robbery constitutes a crime of violence." 850
F.3d 285, 292 (6th Cir. 2017). Petitioner's § 2255
Motion is DENIED.

Petitioner's
Motion to Amend § 2255 seeks relief on the same grounds
as his § 2255 Motion. Petitioner argues again that,
because "Section 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of
'crime of violence' is substantially similar to the
ACCA residual clause's definition of 'violent felony,
'" which was struck down in Johnson, his
Hobbs Act robbery conviction "is not a qualifying
predicate offense for 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)
purposes." (ECF No. 5-2 at 30, 33.) Petitioner also
argues that Hobbs Act Robbery "does not qualify as a
'crime of violence' under the force clause of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)." (Id. at 33.) As
discussed above, those arguments have been rejected by the
Sixth Circuit. Petitioner's Motion to Amend § 2255
is DENIED AS FUTILE.

III.
Appealability

28
U.S.C. § 2253(a) requires a district court to evaluate
the appealability of its decision denying a § 2255
motion and to issue a certificate of appealability
("COA") "only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also
Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). No § 2255 movant may appeal
without this certificate.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The COA
must state the specific issue or issues that satisfy the
required showing. 28 U.S.C. &sect;&sect; 2253(c) (2) &
(3) . A "substantial showing" is made when the
movant demonstrates that "reasonable jurists could
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Henley v. Bell, 308 Fed.Appx.
989, 990 (6th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). A COA does not require
a showing that the appeal will succeed. Miller-El,
537 U.S. at 337; Caldwell v. ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.